Instigator / Pro
12
1503
rating
26
debates
46.15%
won
Topic
#1083
Oral Immunotherapy
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
WaterPhoenix
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1512
rating
12
debates
54.17%
won
Description
Debating about whether OIT is practical or not
Round 1
I waive
Ay, you waive every single first round. Fine, then I'll cite my sources and set up the definitions.
OIT (Oral Immunotherapy) is a method of giving immunotherapy by mouth. It is used to increase tolerance rates (desensitizing the person to the allergen) by feeding the allergen to the patient.
Sources:
Good luck mate!
Round 2
I was waiving to see your points. Well then, OIT is very beneficial to the patient as it may cure lethal, or near-lethal allergies. Some may say a risk is taken, but doesn't every good thing take risks? Like chemotherapy, surgery, and vaccines. There is currently no way else to cure these allergies except for shots, which cure different allergens that are not ingested, so this brings up the nirvana fallacy. There's barely any reason why OIT is bad, like there's barely any reason that Vaccines are bad.
Responses:
OIT is very beneficial to the patient as it may cure lethal, or near-lethal allergies.
OIT can only cure IgE related allergies which are only one type of allergy causes.
Some may say a risk is taken, but doesn't every good thing take risks?
There is no risk within OIT, there is only the fact that most of the time it has an 80% success rate, meaning that it works only 4/5 times.
There is currently no way else to cure these allergies except for shots
This is false. There is another type of immunotherapy known as sublingual immunotherapy which, similar to OIT, uses the mouth but uses tablets.
so this brings up the nirvana fallacy
Do you understand what the nirvana fallacy is? The nirvana fallacy is comparing real things with a perfect idealized counterpart that isn't real. So no this does not bring up the nirvana fallacy.
There's barely any reason why OIT is bad, like there's barely any reason that Vaccines are bad.
Firstly there are reasons OIT is bad, and secondly vaccines? Excuse me but I thought we were talking about OIT here not vaccines. Forgive me if you misunderstood me somewhere and thought I was going against vaccines but I wasn't.
shots, which cure different allergens that are not ingested
which cure different allergens that are not ingested
Environmental allergies (allergens that are not ingested) are not curable by OIT, so I'd say it's a fair tradeoff.
Claim:
OIT isn't a "cure" for allergies as many make it out to be. It is just a form of desensitization that allows the patient to eat the food without getting an allergic reaction. But here's the catch, the patient has to eat the allergen daily even if he/she is desensitized to the allergen, and this isn't even accounting for the ~40 weeks to get there! Also, to my knowledge, OIT does not even cure my allergy, seafood. Another thing is, as aforementioned, OIT does not work for patients with Eosinophilic Esophagitis, which is another form of allergy, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and Celiac disease. OIT isn't completely safe either. Severe allergic reactions occur in 1-10% of patients on OIT. Also, the rate of anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction that may cause death from severe swelling, is 5%! And on top of all that to even start OIT, the patient needs to be 4 years old! These are the reasons why OIT is not a good option when taking allergy medications.
Additional Sources used:
ggwp
ago
Club stated a lot of false points and did not write many points
WDYM
Okay
Both of you had issues to be honest.
I have read the debate like ten times. A single contadiction does not mean much he automatically loses on arguments. I am not going to be comfortable weighing arguments. I have merely been going through unvoted debates today and trying to ensure no debate goes unvoted. I will consider removing my vote since it does not judge arguments if you get a few competent votes who do judge the arguments.
Club stated a lot of false points and did not write many points.
We are not enemies and I planned on rereading arguments a few more times in an attempt to better understand them. I need to put pen to paper to decise though
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [Wylted] // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
He says in the debate as a response to pro saying there is some risks to OIT
"There is no risk within OIT"
Then later on goes on to list the risks of OIT things such as anaphylactic shock
If you could add me with arguments, that would be nice because WP contradicted. I hope that we won't become enemies on the site just because of Wikipedia.
Club if the wikipedia entry is unreliable, point out what facts it got wrong. If you think none of the facts he points out using wikipedia is wrong than it is stupid to call this instance unreliable.
Sure you don't know about me Club I mean it's not like you have me on hangouts right? Also, Ragnar, I wouldn't mind but I don't know about Club
I wouldn't mind but I don't know about WP
Would you two mind redoing this with either a third round or actually starting in R1? ... based on the flow of comments, more rounds might be warrnted.
Hate to break it to ya but Wikipedia is not reliable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
I also said it was a fair tradeoff.
None of your points actually proved anything towards con, I enjoyed debating with you, but your arguments were too weak.
Environmental allergies (allergens that are not ingested) are not curable by OIT, so I'd say it's a fair tradeoff.
EA's are cured by shots
You don't sound like Con at all, you haven't made any arguments against OIT! Vote for Pro. The Nirvana Fallacy is basically that a clear solution is better than unrealistic solutions.
As this is a two-round debate, you should've started with your points instead of waiving ever first round, or it would be a big waste of time.
as this is only a 2 round debate, you should've replied with your points, or it would be a big waste of time.
Getting dem high ranks
One would assume that if OIT works, then it is a practical solution to a known problem.
Otherwise it would be a complete waste of time.
So wherein lies the debate?